Yes. Under the carpet, on the tack strip and baseboard, and I believe all the spots on the mattresses were confirmed to be blood, and all tested positive for her DNA. Every exhibit they have shown that has had a swab taken from it has tested positive for her DNA. The bat did not test positive for blood, but it did have her DNA. That result is completely understandable because of the nature of the wound it was used to inflict, and the cleaning. In addition to blood, it probably had a lot of soft tissue residue sticking to it, and maybe small spicules of bone. He cleaned it and got rid of the blood well enough, but there was probably soft tissue still smeared on it that wasn't completely cleaned off and he didn't realize it. That's probably the source of the DNA. As to your last question; yes, if the jury is as dumb as a box of rocks........... Edit: should also add, that it is not surprising that no DNA was recovered from the bathroom. Bathrooms are a lot easier to clean all the evidence away if you are sufficiently thorough, and you can use much harsher cleaning agents in the bathroom than you can on your carpet and mattress.